Miscellaneous Correspondence - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Transit ~l' Z (o / O c> From: Mike Hansen To: DAVID HARTWIG; PEGGY MITCHELL; RANDY CURTIS Date: Wed, Jul 26, 2000 12:00 PM Subject: Streetscape--Transit Mall Removal Folks, I talked briefly with Randy. I understand that the proposal for the Transit Mall includes removal of transit facilities from High Street, restoration of the road surface, restoration of parking and reconstruction of the sidewalks in front of the courthouse. The problem is finding a way to do this. The county is a party to the Streetscape Agreement, so the county has an obligation to undertake this activity. It is not alone. transit is also a party. The county and transit have to hire the architecUengineer to design the project. Fees are limited to 6% of actual costs and pay out is controlled by the Streetscape Agreement. The selection method is not specified. Therefore, selection can be done in any fashion consistent with county rules. That includes an RFP process if fees are likely to exceed $25,000. (What is 6% of the expected cost?) If less than $25,000, competitive quotes. And, yes, I agree. If we can "piggyback" on the city agreement, great. It depends on what the city contract with Westech provides. As for construction, that must be competitivefy bid. The basic state laws and county rules will so require. So does the Streetscape Agreement. I don't think we can simply amend the Pence/Kelly contract. This project does not appear to be part of the scope of the original work for CHSQ, as bid. However, we did know we would have to remove the old transit mall, and that we would use streetscape funds for this. I just don't recall that we included this element in the construction bid packet for CHSQ. Am I right? I understand that you will meet tomorrow to discuss this. If you want an attorney from my office present, let me know. We'll provide one. CC: Jo Stonecipher